ABSTRACT

This comment builds on the methodological reflections presented in the joint article by Brandon and Bosma in this issue. It examines three ‘demarcation problems’ that beset all the articles presented in this issue: where to draw the line between costs and benefits (for whom, at what stage in the process of reaping the gains of the forced labour of the enslaved, and in what link of the global commodity chain?); how to meaningfully translate benefits drawn from imperial and trans-imperial economic activities to a national accounting framework; and how to account for revenues when these were redistributed through schemes of profit sharing and complicated financial arrangements. Thinking through such seemingly technical problems can bring us closer to essential questions concerning the political economy of slavery. Many of the ‘new historians’ of capitalism and slavery treat national accounting as essentially hostile terrain. However, when not approached as an abstract numbers game, it can be a valuable tool for clarifying the stakes of the many different actors whose business revolved around the commodified lives of the enslaved, help to understand their interrelations and highlight their involvement in organising new relations of exchange, production and power.

摘要

此评论建立在布兰登和博斯马在本期联合文章中提出的方法论思考的基础上。它研究了困扰本期所有文章的三个“分界问题”：在成本与收益之间划清界限（为谁，在收获奴隶的强迫劳动的过程中的哪个阶段，以及全球商品链的什么环节？）；如何将帝国和跨帝国经济活动所产生的利益有效地转化为国民核算框架；以及当通过利润共享计划和复杂的财务安排重新分配收入时如何计算收入。对这些看似技术性的问题进行思考可以使我们更接近有关奴隶制政治经济学的基本问题。资本主义和奴隶制的许多“新历史学家”都将国民核算视为本质上的敌对地形。但是，如果不将其视为抽象的数字游戏，它可以成为一种有价值的工具，用于阐明其业务围绕被奴役者的居家生活而生活的许多不同参与者的利益，有助于了解他们的相互关系并突出他们在组织新关系中的参与交流，生产和力量。